Posts

Patents - Philip Morris Products v Nicoventures

Image
Jane Lambert Patents Court  (HH Judge Hacon)  Philip Morris Products SA and another v Nicoventures Trading Ltd and another  [2023] EWHC 2616 (Pat) (25 Oct 2023) This was a claim by Philip Morris Products SA and Philip Morris Limited ("PMI") for the revocation of European patent (UK) 3 367 830 B1  ("EP830") and a counterclaim by Nicoventures Trading Limited and British American Tobacco (Investments)  Limited ("BAT") for the infringement of that patent.  There was also an application by BAT to amend the patent and an application by PMI for an Arrow declaration. These proceedings came on for trial before His Honour Judge Hacon sitting as a judge of the High Court between 21 and 23 and on 27 and 28 Sept, 2023.  The learned judge delivered judgment on 25 Ocr 2023 (see  Philip Morris Products SA and another v Nicoventures Trading Ltd and another [2023] EWHC 2616 (Pat) (25 Oct 2023)). By para [216] of his judgment he dismissed the counterclaim.  The patent had no

Trade Marks - Gibraltar (UK) Ltd and another v Viovet Ltd

Image
Molly (x) 2020 Jane Lambert: all rights reserved Jane Lambert   Chancery Division, Intellectual Property List  (James Pickering KC) Gibraltar (UK) Ltd and another v Viovet Ltd   [2024] EWHC 777 (Ch) "Comparative advertising" is defined by reg 2 (1) of The Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008 (SI 2008 No 1276) as "advertising which in any way, either explicitly or by implication, identifies a competitor or a product offered by a competitor."  The same regulation defines "advertising" is "any form of representation which is made in connection with a trade, business, craft or profession in order to promote the supply or transfer of a product." That form of advertissing was prohibited by s.4 (1) of the Trade Marks Act 1938  following the Court of Appeal's judgment in  Bismag Ltd v Amblins (Chemists) Ltd.  [1940] Ch 667, [1940] 2 All ER 608, 109 LJ Ch 305, 57 RPC 209, 84 Sol Jo 381, 163 LT 127, 56 TLR 721.  The 1938 Act

Practice - Ocean On Land Technology (UK) Ltd and Another v Land and Others

Image
Lobster Author Bart Btaun   Licence Public Domain   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court  (Pat Treacy)  Ocean On Land Technology (UK) Ltd and Another v Land and Others [2024] EWHC 396 (IPEC) (4 March 2024) On 16 Jan 2024, Ms Pat Treacy, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, heard the following applications in an action for breach of contract and patent and trade mark infringement. The claimants applied to strike out certain paragraphs of the first and second defendants' witness statements.  Alternatively, they sought permission to reply to those paragraphs if those passages were not struck out. The defendants also sought permission to adduce additional evidence in reply to one of the claimants' witness statements.  Ms Treacy handed down her judgment in   Ocean On Land Technology (UK) Ltd and another Land and other s [2024] EWHC 396 (IPEC) on 4 March 2024. The Litigation The first and second defendants are Richard Andrew Land an

Practice - MCPS v Made TV

Image
Royal Courts of Justice Author Aurelian Guichard   Licence CC BY-SA Deed   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Recorder Michaels )  Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society Ltd and another v Made Television Ltd and others [2024] EWHC 405 (IPEC) (29 Feb 2024) This was an application by the defendants to a debt recovery and copyright infringement claim for permission to file and serve an Amended Defence and Counterclaim. The claimants offered to consent to amendments to the Defence but not to the launch of a counterclaim.  The application was heard by Recorder Michaels at a case management conference on 21 Feb 2024.  The recorder handed down her judgment on 29 Feb 2024. The claimants referred the recorder to CPR 17.1 (2) (b) , CPR 20.4 (2) (b ) and paras [40] to [42] of Lady Justice Asplin's judgment in Elite Property Holdings Ltd and Another v Barclays Bank Plc [2019] EWCA Civ 2212: "[40] …it is important to bear in mind that the ove

Patents - J C Barmford's Appeal

Image
Author Abhishekptlbbk Licence CC BY-SA 4.0 Source Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Court of Appeal ( Lord Justice Nugee, Lady Justice Elizabeth Laing and Lord Justice Birss) J C Bamford Excavators Ltd v Manitou UK Ltd and Another [ 2024] EWCA Civ 276 (22 March 2024) In  JC Bamford Excavators Ltd v Manitou UK Ltd and another [2022] EWHC 1724 (Pat) (04 July 2022), JC Bamford Excavators Ltd  ("JCB") sued Manitou UK Ltd and Manitou BF SA ("Manitou") for patent infringement.  Manitou counterclaimed for revocation of JCB's patents. Manitou.  The action and counterclaim came on before His Honour Judge Hacon who held that one of JCB's patents was valid and infringed but revoked the rest. I discussed His Honour's judgment in  Patents - J C Bamford Excavators Ltd v Manitou UK Ltd   on 7 March 2023. The Appeal JCB appealed against the revocation of European patent 2 263 965 B9 for a Method of Operating a Working Machine (“EP 965”) with Judge Hacon's permissi